Young Cancer Patients: Experiences and Outcomes

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Yemm]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

This is Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month, and it is right that we use this moment to shine a light on a group that is too often overlooked: young people who fall between children’s and adult services, and whose needs are too often not fully recognised. Before 1990, young people with cancer were treated either on children’s wards or alongside much older adults, with very little recognition of their distinct needs. The Teenage Cancer Trust changed that. It pioneered specialist care for 13 to 24-year-olds, creating dedicated units within the NHS that are staffed by expert nurses and youth workers, and which are designed to support not just treatment but the whole person. Today, 28 units across the UK help young people to receive care, alongside others their own age, in environments that protect their independence, dignity and mental health. At that age, cancer is not just a medical condition; it disrupts young people’s education, relationships, identity and plans for the future.

We know that when young people receive age-appropriate care, their experiences and outcomes improve significantly, but only around half of young people with cancer currently benefit from this type of specialist support. One of the most critical issues facing young people with cancer is the speed of diagnosis. Unlike many adult cancers, those affecting young people are often rare and cannot be prevented. Blood cancer, which is the most common cancer for young people, does not have the same focus or understanding as other types of cancers. That means early diagnosis is absolutely crucial, yet too many young people face delays.

Awareness of cancer symptoms among young people remains worryingly low. Fewer than half of 18 to 24-year-olds can identify key warning signs—things like unexplained lumps, pain, tiredness or significant weight changes. In Mansfield, I have heard directly from families about the consequences of that lack of awareness: multiple GP visits, uncertainty and delays before being referred for diagnosis. Indeed, nearly half of young people with cancer report attending three or more GP appointments before being referred. That experience was echoed by the family of 11-year-old Joel from Mansfield, who in 2024 sadly passed away after a nine-month battle with acute myeloid leukaemia. He made four initial GP visits and presented with a range of symptoms, which were dismissed as simply bruising from football or as a laundry detergent allergy. After the symptoms worsened, it took a second opinion from another GP and an emergency A&E visit before the cancer was diagnosed correctly.

It is important to recognise that such delays are not just clinical; they are often psychological. Evidence shows that waiting two months or more for a diagnosis significantly increases the likelihood of anxiety and depression. I ask the Minister, how will the Government ensure that teenagers and young adults are not simply funnelled through paediatric diagnostic pathways, but are recognised as a distinct group with distinct needs? What steps will be taken to raise awareness, both among young people and across primary care, of the signs and symptoms of cancer in this particular age group?

The second issue that I want to address is psychological support. A cancer diagnosis at any age is devastating, but for a young person it is often overwhelming. They face fears about survival, about treatment and about their future. Their education is interrupted, their friendships are disrupted and their sense of identity can be shaken. It is deeply concerning. Studies including research from Young Lives vs Cancer, which provides specialist social care support, show that 90% of young people undergoing cancer treatment experience anxiety, 83% report loneliness, 70% experience depression and nearly half experience panic attacks.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Steve Yemm]

In view of the time, I will continue, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

These are not marginal figures. They represent the overwhelming majority, yet despite a clear NHS commitment that every young person should have access to mental health support, provision remains inconsistent. In effect, it is a postcode lottery. Five years ago, the Teenage Cancer Trust warned of that in its “#NotOK” report, but today progress remains limited.

In Mansfield, families have raised with me the difficulty of accessing timely mental health support during and after treatment. The family of Eilidh, a 23-year-old from Mansfield who was diagnosed with a rare lung cancer at the age of 20 after initially being reassured that nothing was wrong, made that point to me. She underwent the removal of an entire lung, but what followed was a lack of clear aftercare and support, with no structured rehabilitation, limited guidance on recovery and ongoing difficulty in navigating care. Her experience highlights not just the physical impact of cancer treatment, but the confusion, anxiety and gaps in support that too many young people face once treatment ends. I ask the Minister what funding and timelines are in place to ensure that every young person with cancer can access specialist psychological support, and not just during treatment but for at least two years afterwards.

The third issue is access to clinical trials. Clinical trials are essential to improving outcomes and developing new treatments, but teenagers and young adults are significantly less likely than other age groups to take part, not because they do not wish to but because the system does not work for them. They are often excluded because of age restrictions: they are too old for paediatric trials and too young for adult trials. They are more likely to have rare cancers, meaning that fewer trials are available. I refer again to Joel from Mansfield: his family asked his doctors about opportunities to participate in a clinical trial, but were told that there were none. Even where trials exist, information can be difficult to find, both for clinicians and for parents.

The ambition has been clear—50% participation by 2025—but progress has been slow. No young person should miss out on a potentially lifesaving opportunity simply because of their age, so I ask the Minister how the Government will measure and report progress on improving access to clinical trials for young people, and what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure delivery.

Finally, I want to address the issue of data. Too often, young people with cancer are effectively invisible in the system. Data is not consistently collected, not consistently reported and not always broken down in a way that allows us to understand their experiences. Without good data, it is hard to identify inequalities, we cannot target improvements and we cannot ensure accountability. What steps will the Minister take to improve the collection and publication of age-specific data on cancer outcomes for teenagers and young adults?

To conclude, the issues I have spoken about today matter deeply to my constituents in Mansfield and to the young people facing cancer today across the country. They also matter to the families supporting them, and they matter to all of us who believe that no young person should face this disease without the care and support they deserve. The evidence is clear: when young people receive timely diagnosis, age-appropriate care, access to psychological support and opportunities to participate in clinical trials, their outcomes improve. The Teenage Cancer Trust has shown what is possible, but it cannot do it alone. If we are serious about improving outcomes, the commitments in the national cancer plan must be delivered with urgency, funding and accountability. We need to improve awareness, we need to remove barriers and we must ensure that young people are no longer overlooked or underserved.

I will close with a simple request to the Minister: will she commit, alongside the Secretary of State who promised me personally that he would do so, to visit a Teenage Cancer Trust unit to hear directly from young people to understand their experiences and to see at first hand the difference that specialist age-appropriate care can make? If we truly listen to those young people, we will know exactly what needs to change.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this very important debate, which, as we heard, is taking place during Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month. I thank him for his very important work on the all-party parliamentary group on cancer in children and young people, as well as for his role as a parliamentary champion for the Teenage Cancer Trust. I am grateful to him for the invitation he has just made for me to visit a Teenage Cancer Trust unit, which I would be very pleased to accept. I pay tribute to some of the fantastic charities that he and I have both worked with: Teenage Cancer Trust, Young Lives vs Cancer and Children with Cancer UK, to name just a few. They supported us to write the national cancer plan. Now that the plan is published, they will play a vital role in its delivery.

Cancer remains a leading cause of death for young people under the age of fourteen. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like for those children and young people, who have their whole life ahead of them, to hear the words, “You have cancer,” not to mention those mums and dads who go through the nightmare of seeing their child suffer. It is true that 78% of children with cancer aged between eight and 15 said they were “very well looked after” by the NHS, but I will not be satisfied until that number reaches 100%. There are so many areas where we must do better, particularly when it comes to patient experience. My hon. Friend laid out clearly in his opening remarks what some of those areas are, so I will go through them one at a time.

Thanks to my excellent predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), we now have a plan that includes a dedicated chapter on children and young people setting out how the Government will address their unique needs. We will begin to shift the dial on detecting, diagnosing and treating cancers in young people, and we will continue to listen to young people and their families, through our patient experience panel, to ensure that lived experience sits at the heart of everything we do.

[Chris Bloore]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate; he has been a champion on this issue since he came to this place. The Minister mentioned patient experience. One issue that has been brought to my attention in my surgeries is that, after the often intensive clinical process of a young person going through a cancer diagnosis, getting treatment and getting through the other side, the period after the all-clear is an intense time of social isolation. Significant mental health support is required to get them back and integrated into school, college or work. Would she be prepared to meet me and young people who have been through that experience to discuss how we can improve the system, so that they can integrate back into normal life as quickly and as efficiently as possible?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I will also commit to meeting him and the young people he mentions, perhaps in co-ordination with my visit to the Teenage Cancer Trust. I hope there will be plenty of opportunity to meet young people during that visit. It is a yes to both of those requests.

We heard from the children and young people cancer taskforce how many parents have been forced to cut back on food and other expenses to pay for the travel to treatment. When a child is diagnosed with cancer, their family’s only focus should be on helping them to recover and getting them well, not on whether they can afford the petrol or the bus fare to get to their next appointment. That is why, through the plan, we are investing up to £10 million a year to support families with travel costs. This fund will make the world of difference to parents. It does not matter what someone earns; if their child needs treatment, we will help to get them there.

We are also transforming the experience of care in hospital by making sure that every child and young person with cancer has access to high-quality, age-appropriate psychological support, which my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) both asked about. That support should be from diagnosis, through treatment and beyond; I will take on board the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for that support to last up to two years post treatment. He spoke about the importance of early referrals to teenage and young adult multidisciplinary teams, with youth support co-ordinators on hand to help young people to navigate the huge journey they are going to have to go on, with the emotional impact of cancer alongside challenges around education, perhaps fertility and their long-term wellbeing.

The Government are committed to diagnosing cancer in children and young people faster to ensure that they get the treatment and care they need as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend set out in his speech, this speed is of the utmost importance, so we will remove the barriers that stand in the way of timely diagnosis by making sure that young people’s needs are embedded into the design of neighbourhood health services.

Just before recess, the Minister for Care announced the first 27 of 250 one-stop health shops that will be up and running next year, with 120 planned by the end of this Parliament. These offer a new model of care, as set out in our 10-year plan for health, with better access to specialist support and the safe roll-out of AI.

Many colleagues—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)—have been pushing the Government for a long time to go further on research, which is why we are making research into improving outcomes for children, especially into kinder and more gentle treatments, a national research priority. The Department will take a more joined-up approach to research priorities using data, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield urged us to do, so that efforts are focused where they can make the greatest difference. We will break down the barriers that prevent young people from accessing clinical trials, particularly those who do not often qualify for paediatric or adult trials, by requiring clinical justifications for age limits, while also strengthening data collection across the cancer pathway.

In the next few months, the Department will establish a reformed national cancer board, once a co-chair has been appointed to oversee and monitor the implementation of our cancer plan. The board will include a dedicated lead for children and young people’s cancer, ensuring that this work is driven forward with clear accountability and focus. They will make sure that we are staying on track. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield will play his part in that too.

The Government believe that all children and young people, no matter their circumstances, deserve support to achieve the very best outcomes in life, but most importantly to live fulfilling and happy lives. Alongside our work on cancer, we are combating the drivers of ill health in children’s lives such as poor diet, damp homes, dirty air and a lack of opportunity. We have abolished the two-child benefit cap, taking half a million children out of destitution, shame and hunger. We have brought in free breakfast clubs and extended free school meals so that kids start school with hungry minds, not hungry bellies. We also introduced the soft drinks industry levy, a warm home discount scheme that reaches millions more, and a generational ban on smoking. Awaab’s law will cut pollution and clean up the air that our children breathe.

This year, I am determined to do everything I can for children and young people with cancer. I have my foot on the accelerator, and I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend in the months ahead on this work.

Question put and agreed to.

International Men’s Day

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing this debate. He is a man I deeply admire, and the bravery he has shown in retelling the story of what happened to him is extraordinary. I am proud to be his colleague, and this House is unquestionably better for him being here.

Cannock Chase holds a special place in my own heart: it is where I spent many hours with my grandad. A former police officer, he would often take me walking across the Chase. He was the first person I ever spoke to about politics as he picked me up from school and fed me every day to support my parents. He was a kind man—a proud one-nation Tory—who taught me that far more unites us than divides us and that in public life we are not enemies, but simply people with different viewpoints on how best to solve the challenges before us. That lesson has stayed with me throughout my life, and I know I am lucky to have had such a strong male role model in my formative years. I miss him every day.

Today’s debate gives us an important opportunity to reflect on the issues affecting men and boys, and on the contributions they make across our society. This is not about pitting one group against another; it is about acknowledging that if we want a fairer and healthier society, we must be honest about where help is needed. The figures on men’s health and wellbeing remain concerning. Men continue to account for the majority of suicides. They are less likely to seek support early, and too often feel compelled to deal with difficulty silently. The old idea that emotional openness undermines masculinity has lingered for far too long. It has cost lives and prevented countless men from getting the help they need.

In that context, I am proud that this Government have launched their men’s health strategy, which sets out a clear 10-year vision for improving the health and wellbeing of men and boys in England. The strategy recognises that reality, and begins the work of addressing it through earlier intervention, better support and a more honest understanding of the specific challenges that men face. I thank the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for their hard work.

I am also proud of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his bravery in speaking openly about his own mental health challenges this week. Far too many men still feel that it is a weakness to demonstrate their humanity by opening up about their struggles. His honesty helps normalise these conversations, and can help save lives.

In Westminster Hall today, we have debated the role of carers—carers such as my dad, who is right now sitting next to my mom in her hospital bed. Hundreds of thousands of men like my dad support their families every day, quietly and with dedication. We can see the pressures faced by boys growing up in Britain today, who are navigating a world shaped by online influencers—some positive, but many harmful. It is men such as my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer and for Cannock Chase, and my dad and grandad, whom I admire and look up to. As a father myself, I want my son to see their examples, and not the false prophets he might see on TikTok, as the true representation of what it is to be a man. Boys need strong, positive role models and reassurance that there is more than one way to be a man.

Today is a moment to celebrate the positive contributions made by men and boys, and by the fathers, grandfathers, carers, teachers, mentors and volunteers who shape our communities—men such as Carl Dickens at Wallop boxing club, who supports young men; Pete Martin, who fights knife crime; Gethin Farnes, who supports veterans; and so many more in Redditch. Supporting men and boys strengthens society as a whole. When men feel able to seek help, relationships improve.

Today would have been the 100th birthday of my political hero, Bobby Kennedy. One of my favourite quotes of his is:

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask, ‘Why?’ I dream of things that never were, and ask, ‘Why not?’”

I am proud that this House is united in its insistence on changing things for the better, and in supporting men and boys to live healthier, fuller and more meaningful lives.

I will finish with a “knock, knock” joke, if that is permissible. Knock, knock!

[Hon. Members]

Who’s there?

[Chris Bloore]

Tank.

[Hon. Members]

Tank who?

[Chris Bloore]

You’re welcome! [Laughter.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

World Stroke Day

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important debate and for sharing her personal story and those of her constituents. That is exactly why this is such an important issue for us to speak about. Stroke can happen to anyone, at any time, in any family.

Stroke is the leading cause of complex adult disability in the UK, yet too often it remains underfunded, understaffed and under-prioritised. Recovery does not end when someone leaves hospital—for many, that is just the beginning. Relearning to walk, to speak, to eat or simply to live independently again takes extraordinary strength and proper support. Physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy can transform lives, but right now only 17% of community services have access to all three.

In Redditch, there are around 2,000 stroke survivors. I thank everyone who has contacted me, from Redditch to the Lenches, from Harvington to Wychbold, to share their stories and experiences. This issue cuts across every age, every background and every family. I have spoken to people in their 30s and 40s whose lives were turned upside down overnight. Stroke affects not only individuals, but their loved ones, their workplaces and their communities.

I thank the organisers of the Redditch stroke support group for everything they do to help local stroke survivors and their families.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that organisations such as the one he mentioned, the Stroke Association and others have a vital role to play in bringing these matters to the attention of this House for as long as it takes?

[Chris Bloore]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The work of those organisations—the listening, guidance and encouragement—is often what helps people to take the first steps back towards confidence, independence and hope. They are a vital part of our community and I am deeply grateful for their dedication.

The Government’s 10-year health plan is an opportunity to do better: to shift our focus from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention. We know that nine in 10 strokes are linked to preventable risk factors such as high blood pressure and heart disease. Prevention saves lives, but it must be matched by proper rehabilitation and support for those already living with stroke, because one in four stroke survivors will have another stroke within five years.

As we mark this World Stroke Day, I pay tribute to the Stroke Association, to our incredible NHS staff and, above all, to all survivors and carers, who show every day what courage and recovery looks like. With the right help, life after stroke is not just possible; it can be full of purpose, love and dignity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman is right to commend Sir Chris Whitty’s report. We have taken that into consideration, as well as the wider consultation we did in preparation for our 10-year plan for health, which will commit to tackling the gross health inequalities that affect our country, particularly in rural and coastal communities.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

T2.   Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the recent NHS waiting list figures that show that the Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust has seen a fall of over 6,000 since this Government came into office? Does he agree that progress like this shows that, in partnership with our hard-working NHS staff, we can be the generation that takes the NHS from the worst crisis in its history to the NHS that people deserve?

[Wes Streeting]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is thanks to the fact that his constituents sent him to this House of Commons that we have a Labour Government able to deliver, with him, for his community.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Evans]

I rise to speak to clause 41 and schedule 3, which introduce the independent mental health advocate system under the Mental Health Act 1983. I recognise the positive intentions behind the reforms. The proposals respond to long-standing concerns about access to advocacy for people receiving mental health treatment, especially for those who are not detained, but are nevertheless vulnerable, and may struggle to understand the challenges within their care.

Currently, IMHA services are guaranteed only to a relatively narrow group—namely, patients detained under the Act, those under community treatment orders or guardianship, and certain patients undergoing serious medical treatments under sections 57 or 58A. As the explanatory notes make clear in paragraph 313, that excludes a substantial number of informal or voluntary patients, many of whom may be experiencing significant distress or coercion, even if they are technically not detained.

The clause expands eligibility to a new category of English qualifying informal patients, bringing England more in line with a system already used in places such as Wales. This welcome and overdue development reflects the principle that the right to advocacy should be grounded not in a legal status alone, but in need and vulnerability. The introduction of the opt-out referral system for detained patients is also a step forward. Concerns have been raised that eligible patients never access IMHA, often because they are unaware, overwhelmed or too unwell for self-referral. Making the referral automatic is likely to increase the uptake and strengthen patient voices in critical decisions about care, treatment and discharge.

Although the direction of travel is right, I want to raise several probing questions in areas of concern, particularly relating to implementation, scope and safe- guarding. On resource and workforce readiness, the Government are significantly expanding both the pool of eligible patients and the responsibility of advocacy providers. That is welcome, but it inevitably raises the question of capacity. Can the Minister confirm whether additional funding will be made available to local authorities, or is it up to the NHS and IMHA providers to ensure the expansion is deliverable? Are the new roles of the IMHAs explicitly addressed in the new workforce plan that he is introducing? What assessment has been done of the number of new IMHAs that will be required to meet the duties, particularly now we are using an opt-out model? Without the workforce and training in place, there is a risk that the rights introduced in the legislation will not be fully realised in practice.

My second point is about capacity, consent and best-interest decisions. I would like to clarify a couple of points on schedule 3. It would appear, as drafted, that IMHA providers will be required to assess whether a patient has the capacity to decide whether to receive advocacy, and if not, whether it is in their best interests to do so. That gives providers a significant and quasi-clinical responsibility.

Proposed new section 130B(2C) states:

“Arrangements under section 130A must require a provider of advocacy services, on becoming aware of an English qualifying compulsory patient for whom they are responsible, to arrange for an independent mental health advocate to visit and interview the patient (if possible) with a view to determining”,

first,

“whether the patient has the capacity or is competent to take a decision about whether to receive help from an independent mental health advocate”;

secondly,

“if the patient does have that capacity or competence, whether the patient wishes to receive such help”;

and thirdly,

“if the patient does not have that capacity or competence, whether it is nonetheless in the patient’s best interests to receive such help (which, if so, is to be provided under the arrangements).”

On the first point about whether the patient has the capacity or is competent to take a decision about receiving help from an IMHA, my understanding is as follows. The role of independent mental health advocates is to support people detained under the Mental Health Act, to understand their rights and to be involved in decisions about their care and treatment. IMHAs do not, I believe, have the legal authority to assess mental capacity. The assessment of mental capacity is typically carried out by a qualified healthcare professional such as a doctor, psychiatrist or specially trained nurse, following guidance under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. IMHAs are there to help patients understand the information about their treatment and their rights, and can support them in expressing their views, but they do not perform capacity assessments. So is this a change in professional scope? Is it an oversight? Is it an update? Or is it simply what is happening in practice, which now has legal backing?

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but is not the point of an IMHA to ensure that the patient understands their rights under the previous Act and the Bill? That is how they participate in taking decisions about what is available to the patient. Although they might not be clinically trained, they know the legislation inside out, and that gives power and advocacy to the patient.

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Gentleman identifies exactly what the point of an IMHA is. The way the Bill is written, the IMHA determines whether a patient has capacity or competence to make a decision. That determining means that they are making the choice, which is quasi-clinical. According to the definition that the hon. Gentleman has just given, that would fall out of the IMHA’s scope, because that would involve the ability to make decisions about capacity.

My concern is whether we have scope creep here. If so, we should be explicit about it—perhaps it is something we want to consider—but the way it is written, IMHAs will make capacity-based decisions about whether a person has the capacity to decide whether they need help. I would argue that that should be done by someone who is qualified as a doctor, a psychiatrist or community psychiatric nurse, as currently happens. That is the clarification that I am looking for from the Government. If I have the wrong end of the stick, I will happily back down, but this area of the Bill needs clarifying.

To that end, and if the Bill is written as I fear, I would welcome it if the Minister can tell us how IMHA providers will be supported to make best interest decisions appropriately, especially in cases involving fluctuating capacity or complex presentations. Will there be clinical oversight or statutory guidance to avoid inconsistency or overreach in these assessments? Although I support the principle of proactively offering advocacy, we must ensure that the decisions made on a person’s behalf are done with the appropriate checks and accountability, and by the right people.

My third point is about the exclusion of emergency section patients. The welcome change in the clause and the schedule expands the pool of support, but we should also pay attention to those who are, by definition, excluded. Paragraph 317 of the explanatory notes make it clear that individuals detained under sections 4, 5, 135 and 136 will not benefit from IMHA support. Those are often people detained in crisis situations, sometimes in police custody, or brought in under emergency powers.

For completeness, will the Minister clarify why that group is being left out, given their heightened vulnerability and the likelihood of distress or disorientation? Are the Government satisfied that patients under these emergency powers are receiving adequate information and support at the most critical moments of intervention? Is there a mechanism to support the nominated person if the patient does not have capacity, so that the nominated person receives the information they need to make a fully informed decision? If the answer is that the duration of detention is too short to justify IMHA involvement, I ask the Minister: how short is too short when a person’s liberty and medical autonomy are in question?

It may be that Government amendments 42 and 43 address some of those points, so I will return to this in a second before moving on to my fourth point. In terms of information sharing and patient autonomy, I welcome the retention of the duty to inform patients, especially informal patients, of their right to advocacy, and for that provision to be given both orally and in writing. However, I note that the responsible person must also—except where the patient requests otherwise—be provided with written information to the nominated person. What safeguards are in place to ensure that that does not inadvertently breach the patient’s privacy, such as in situations involving estranged family members, controlling relationships or very personal health issues, which could be disclosed but are not relevant to mental health? It is essential that the nominated person framework enhances advocacy and support and does not undermine the person’s right to control who knows about their care.

Finally, I would welcome clarity from the Minister about how the uptake and impact of expanding the IMHA system will be monitored. Will there be reporting requirements on providers? If so, will that be through the integrated care boards, or is that part of the CQC? Will patients have the opportunity to feed back on the effectiveness of the support they receive?

Before I turn to the amendments, I reiterate that the Opposition support the principle of strengthening advocacy in mental health services. Clause 41 is an important step towards a more rights-based and person-centred system, but the detail of the implementation is key.

I note that proposed Government amendments 42 and 43 to schedule 3 specifically change the definition of “English qualifying informal patient” and “Welsh qualifying informal patient” to exclude patients detained under any

“legislation or by virtue of a court order”,

rather than limiting exclusion to those detained solely under the Mental Health Act. That important clarification partly improves on one of the problems I mentioned when discussing clause 41.

In simple terms, those amendments try to address the issue of clarity and coverage for patients detained under other laws, and I believe that this is how they do that. Originally, the Bill excluded only patients detained under the Mental Health Act from being classified as informal patients eligible for IMHA services, but some patients might be detained under other laws or court orders, such as criminal justice laws, which the original wording did not cover. The amendments change the definition to exclude anyone detained under any legislation or by a court, not just the Mental Health Act. In practice, this means that patients detained under other laws will not mistakenly be considered informal patients eligible for IMHA services under this part of the Bill.

The proposals close a gap so that the right groups get advocacy services, and there is less confusion for hospitals and advocates about who qualifies. In essence, by broadening and bettering the definition and defining the exclusion, this will ensure that patients detained under other legislation, such as the Criminal Justice Act, or other court-mandated detention powers, are not mistakenly classified as informal patients eligible for IMHA services under those provisions. That reflects a more comprehensive and legally coherent approach to defining eligibility.

This clarity is welcome, as it reduces potential ambiguity in respect of providers. That said, will the Minister comment further on how these changes will interact with existing IMHA provisions or advocacy entitlements for those detained under other legislation? Are there parallel safeguards or advocacy rights for those groups? What guidance will be provided to practitioners and IMHA providers to navigate the complexities of overlapping detention regimes, especially when a patient’s status might shift rapidly between voluntary Mental Health Act detention and court orders? Will this amendment necessitate any further changes in regulations or operational policies to ensure smooth implementation and clarity for patients, families and service providers? Ensuring that no patient falls through the cracks due to definitional nuances is crucial for integrity in our mental health advocacy services.

Finally, Lib Dem amendment 19 would insert after “patient”, in schedule 3, page 91, line 13,

“or English qualifying informal patient under 18”.

As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and Opposition Members rightly pointed out, it is quite hard to see why the Government would not want to put that in place. The explanatory statement says that it aims to extend

“the provision of opt-out advocacy services in England to informal inpatients under 18.”

It seems clear in what it does and is a well-defined amendment to that end. I am keen to understand why the Government do not want to support it. Do they believe that this is currently balanced elsewhere in the system? Are there already provisions elsewhere? If not, why—if it is good for adults and we are strengthening their opportunities—should it not be the same for our children?

I will finish on that point. I would be grateful for answers on the clause, the schedule, the Government amendments and the Lib Dem amendment.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I think everyone is in agreement.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Could we have some clarity on what adjourning the Committee right now would mean? Several members of the Committee have not returned from the Division, and it would be good to know the implications if we adjourn now.

[Aphra Brandreth]

The Conservative members of the Committee all came back at 5.40 pm, when we were asked to return.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

On a point of order, Ms Furniss. I called for a Division on the Adjournment before several members of the Committee who are now in the room came back. What is your ruling on whether members who were not here when the Division was called will be allowed to vote?

[Chris Bloore]

With the greatest of respect to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, I clearly asked my question before the Question was put. We therefore have not divided yet.

[The Chair]

You wanted to know what adjourning now would mean for the progress of the Bill, and it would mean that we have to restart where we finished, so Thursday could be a longer day.

Dementia Care

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate, which shines vital light on an issue that affects so many families across this country, especially in my constituency of Redditch and the villages.

Over 900,000 people in the UK are currently living with dementia, and by 2040 that number is expected to rise to 1.6 million. However, the challenge is not just the growing number of people affected, but the poor support that many receive and the inequalities that persist in diagnosis and care. It is estimated that only about 65% of people aged 65 or over who are thought to have dementia actually have a recorded diagnosis, which means that far too many people are missing out on vital help early on. That is especially true in communities including ethnic minorities and in deprived areas.

I have been contacted by many families in Redditch who describe the distress of waiting months—sometimes years—for a diagnosis or clear guidance on what to do next. One particularly heartbreaking aspect is the many families who are forced to sell the home of a parent who no longer knows that they cannot return home. These homes often represent a lifetime of memories, yet families face that heartbreaking decision simply because the system does not provide adequate care options.

A particularly worrying fact cited by Age UK is that 19% of people it spoke to were concerned about accessing dementia services—they did not know where to turn or felt unable to get the support they needed. We also have to confront the huge variation in care home capacity across England’s integrated care board areas. In some parts of the country, care home availability simply cannot meet demand, limiting options for people with dementia and their families. This postcode lottery means that some people wait longer or must travel far from home for care, which is unacceptable.

The challenges faced by our NHS are also starkly evident in dementia care. Too many patients with dementia are caught up in the crisis of corridor care, where beds are not available and patients wait in hospital corridors for hours or even days. It is deeply distressing for patients and their families, and exacerbates the risk of deterioration. Such failures are a direct consequence of years of under-investment in our NHS, which has stretched resources to breaking point.

My own mother served in the NHS for 40 years. She witnessed at first hand both its strengths and its struggles. I know how deeply committed this Government are, just as the then Government were in the late 1990s, to rebuilding and reinvesting in our NHS. The recent commitments to increase funding and recruit more staff are steps in the right direction, but we must ensure that translates into real improvements in dementia care on the ground.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. One of my constituents has a grandma who waited a staggering 18 months for a dementia diagnosis. The family did not have the £3,000 required to get a private diagnosis. My hon. Friend mentioned the need to increase the resources available to the NHS and how committed this Government are, so will he join me in encouraging the Minister to direct resources not just to dementia care, but to dementia diagnosis, so people can get the diagnosis they need faster?

[Chris Bloore]

My hon. Friend’s intervention highlights inequalities throughout the country and reaffirms why the hon. Member for South Devon sought this debate. People who cannot access private care are put at a huge disadvantage, which is simply not acceptable, so I agree with my hon. Friend’s call to the Government.

We know that people with dementia are far more likely to have unplanned hospital admissions, which can cause distress and often worsen their condition. That shows why we urgently need better community care, and why hospital staff must have improved dementia training to provide the care that these patients deserve.

The economic cost of dementia to the UK is enormous; including healthcare, social care and the wider costs to society, it is estimated to be over £42 billion a year. The huge financial burden highlights the importance not only of investing in medical research but of improving support and care infrastructure.

Unpaid carers play a massive and often overlooked role. In fact, family members and friends provide the majority of care for people living with dementia. Women make up a disproportionate share of unpaid carers, balancing that demanding role alongside work and other responsibilities. Their contribution is invaluable but can come at a significant personal cost, including financial strain, mental and physical exhaustion, and social isolation.

Age UK has made it clear that the system is overstretched and underfunded. People in Redditch, and everywhere else, deserve consistent, high-quality care that respects their dignity no matter where they live.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In particular, I commend him for the way in which he has talked about the support that relatives often give as caregivers. Will he elaborate a little further on the points he made about the need for more resources to be focused on less advantaged communities? My own experience in representing a community that has some disadvantages is that people in those communities, particularly families from ethnic minority backgrounds, need far more support.

[Chris Bloore]

I completely agree. It is clear from the data that disadvantaged communities and those from ethnic minorities are not getting the targeted support that they need; I see that in my constituency, particularly in the Winyates district of Redditch. The data shows a very clear reason for further intervention.

Diagnosis is only the start. The Alzheimer’s Society calls for a minimum standard of good quality post-diagnosis support, but real faults remain. Too many people receive little or no clear information after diagnosis. They are left to navigate a confusing maze of services alone, with inconsistent follow-up and limited access to support groups or counselling. That gap leaves families isolated and unsure about managing symptoms or planning for the future, increasing stress and uncertainty during a profoundly difficult time.

Carers also bear an incredible burden. Families in Redditch tell me about exhaustion and isolation. We need better respite care, as the hon. Member for South Devon said, and better financial support and mental health services for carers. Too many of my residents rely on the voluntary sector for support in their communities; I particularly commend the Astwood Bank memory café for the work that it does.

We must improve the skills of those caring for people with dementia. The Alzheimer’s Society calls for mandatory, high-quality dementia training for all adult social care workers. Hospital staff need better access to dementia training too, because too many patients experience distress and delays because staff do not have the skills that they need.

Importantly, dementia must have parity of esteem with cancers in funding and Government prioritisation. Dementia affects millions and carries a massive societal and economic cost. It deserves the same urgent intention, investment and commitment that cancers receive so that research, care and support can improve in step.

While investing in research is important, we cannot forget the urgent need to improve care for those people living with dementia. Dementia care is a test of our values. I am sure that no one in this House believes that anyone should face this journey alone or without support. We should all be committed to building a fairer, more compassionate care system that delivers for all, including the people of Redditch and the villages.

Parkinson’s Disease

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. He spoke with real passion and conviction, as did hon. Members from across the Chamber. I do not know whether we have a full house from Dorset, but we have the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade); it was great to hear their thoughts. We also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke, as always, with great passion and conviction. This debate follows closely on the heels of the Backbench Business debate on Parkinson’s Awareness Month, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). I thank the Members who have spoken in both debates.

I pay tribute to the invaluable work of NHS clinicians, charities and care workers who spend every single day improving the lives of people with Parkinson’s disease. I am particularly encouraged by the Parky charter, which is raising public and professional awareness about the needs of the Parkinson’s community and the importance of timely diagnosis, comprehensive care and dignity for all people with Parkinson’s. Organisations that fight for patients, such as Parkinson’s UK, are at the heart of our policies for the NHS, which is broken but not beaten. We look forward to working with them to fix the foundations of the NHS and to make it work for people with Parkinson’s in Colne Valley, throughout Yorkshire and across the country.

Parkinson’s disease can severely impact every aspect of a person’s daily life, as well as the lives of their family and unpaid carers. It can put people under immense strain, and they deserve additional support to help them live with the condition. Around 153,000 people live with Parkinson’s in the UK, and it is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. About 16.5 million people in the UK, or one in six of the population, have a neurological condition, and 600,000 people are diagnosed with one each year. Together, neurological conditions cause around 140,000 deaths every year in the UK—one fifth of all deaths—and they are the leading cause of disability.

In 2019, the NHS spent just under £4.5 billion on neurological conditions and they cost the UK economy £96 billion, so tackling them presents a real opportunity not just for the Government’s health mission but for our growth mission. We must face the fact that patients are facing significant challenges, including not enough people in the places we need them, and delays to treatment and care, with long waiting times. We also listen to patients who tell us that they have experienced a lack of information and support.

We are acting to address those challenges, starting with our workforce. Parkinson’s nurses and neurologists are worth their weight in gold, and they are key to meeting patient demand. This summer, we will publish a refreshed long-term workforce plan, as a first step towards rebuilding our workforce over the next decade and treating patients on time again. We will ensure that the NHS has the right people, in the right places, with the right skills, to deliver the care that patients need when they need it. We will set out in black and white the numbers of doctors, nurses and other professionals who will be needed in five, 10 and 15 years’ time.

Turning to waiting lists, the NHS constitution sets out that patients should start consultant-led treatment within a maximum of 18 weeks from referral for non-urgent conditions. At the start of the year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister announced our elective reform plan, which sets out our approach to hitting that target by the end of this Parliament. We have already surpassed our manifesto pledge to deliver an extra 2 million elective appointments, seven months ahead of the deadline; we are now on 3 million appointments and counting. Many of those were appointments for treating Parkinson’s.

I know that there may be some people with Parkinson’s watching the debate at home and shouting at their telly, “Well, I am still waiting for treatment.” Although waiting lists are coming down, and recently fell for six months in a row, they are still high. I completely understand why people who are still waiting feel frustrated. I say to them: we are throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at waiting lists, and we will not stop until you see and feel the results.

The NHS has begun some important initiatives to improve its neurology services, including the neuroscience transformation programme, the Getting it Right First Time initiative, a strengthened clinical reference group and the appointment of a national clinical director for neurology. The NHS is focusing on improving patient experiences, addressing the disparities in care and ensuring that patients are given their medicines on time. The neuroscience transformation programme is focusing on faster diagnoses, better co-ordinated care and improved access to specialist services.

At the at the recent Backbench Business debate—and, of course, in this debate—a number of hon. Members spoke about personal independence payment as an important way of helping people to cope with the extra living costs of a disability or health condition. I am sure all Members would agree that those who can work should work. However, I am happy to reassure colleagues that our “Pathways to Work” Green Paper will make sure that people with the most severe lifelong health conditions who cannot work will see their incomes protected. We are consulting on the Green Paper to hear how best we can support those impacted by our reforms.

We continue to encourage research, which is advancing our understanding of Parkinson’s at breakneck speed, through targeted funding, infrastructure support and collaboration. For example, the UK Dementia Research Institute, sponsored by this Government, is partnering with Parkinson’s UK to establish a new £10 million research centre. The NIHR is supporting research that has discovered that eye scans can detect Parkinson’s disease up to seven years before symptoms appear, which helps people to receive treatment earlier and prepare themselves as best they can.

Research also underpins the entire drug discovery and development process. Produodopa is a groundbreaking new treatment for Parkinson’s disease, particularly for patients with advanced disease and severe motor fluctuations. It is revolutionary because it provides a continuous 24-hour infusion of medication via a small pump, allowing more consistent symptom control. The NHS rolled it out in February last year. It has been shown to improve motor function and has proved its worth by significantly improving the quality of life for people with advanced Parkinson’s.

At the debate on 1 May, many Members emphasised the importance of staying active. Indeed, there is strong scientific evidence that being physically active can help people to lead a healthier and happier life. For example, exercise can reduce the risk of major illnesses and lowers the risk of early death by up to a third. Our social prescribing programme is a key component of the NHS’s universal personalised care and a way for GPs or local agencies to refer people to a social prescribing link worker. Those workers give people time, focusing on what matters to them and taking a holistic approach to people’s health and wellbeing. They connect people to community groups and statutory services for practical and emotional support.

Looking forward, we have committed to publishing a 10-year plan for health to shift the focus of our NHS from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from treatment to prevention. In the meantime, we have taken steps towards those shifts through the home-based care pathway, which is providing comprehensive support and care for people with Parkinson’s in their own home, and through the NIHR project to test a non-invasive vibrational cueing system, helping people with Parkinson’s to maintain their walking as they go about their everyday lives.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing the debate. I declare an interest as a member of the APPG on Parkinson’s, as the son of a sufferer of Parkinson’s, and as the grandson of someone who died suffering of Parkinson’s. We all agree that, while there are real challenges, we must secure a cure for Parkinson’s. Does the Minister agree that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the partners, spouses and community groups that do so much to support people suffering from Parkinson’s as they go through not only horrific mobility loss but the associated deep psychiatric problems?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; our system could not survive without the amazing and heroic work of our unpaid carers. One of our Government’s actions that I am most proud of is the change to the carer’s allowance. We increased the number of hours for which a carer can work and still keep their carer’s allowance by raising the threshold from £151 to £196. I hope that is giving carers the flexibility that they need. Many carers want to work but it is immensely stressful for them to balance their working and caring responsibilities. I was very pleased that we could announce that change back in January, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a lot more that we can do. I am working with colleagues in DWP and the Department for Business and Trade to look at how we can do more as a Government for unpaid carers. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to them; they are the lifeblood of our care system.

The consultation on our 10-year plan received over 190,000 responses, giving people with Parkinson’s and other conditions a voice in the future of healthcare. I want to conclude this debate by quoting just one of those voices—that of Winston, a former St John Ambulance worker from Lewisham. He said:

“People don’t always see what’s happening to me, or what Parkinson’s looks like on me. They don’t see me early in the morning. They see me looking nice and managing the condition as best I can. But I have to deal with my own bubble sometimes, and it gets burst, and things go all over the place.”

I am pleased that Winston is doing fantastically well and now sharing tips with people on how to improve their public speaking abilities. His words will resonate with anyone who has a long-term condition. Stories like his should remind us why we need a health service that sees the whole person, not just the condition, to give patients the dignity, care and respect that they deserve.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley again for securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to all Members for making it constructive and powerful. I look forward to working with Members on this matter.

Ambulance Response Times

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing today�s important debate.

I welcome the news that ambulance waiting times are slowly improving in my area of the west midlands, but I would like to raise an issue that has been brought to me by several of my constituents in very distressing circumstances: how long those ambulances are having to wait outside A&E departments.

An ambulance service needs hospital services that can support it, and my constituents deserve to know that if they need urgent healthcare, an ambulance will turn up quickly and be able to deliver them to the appropriate care as soon as possible. At the moment, that is simply not happening: 66.6% of ambulances at Worcestershire Royal hospital, which serves many of my constituents, were left waiting longer than 30 minutes in the first week of January 2025. Prior to that, in October, only 50% of people attending any of the trust�s A&E departments, including mine in Redditch, were treated, admitted, or discharged within four hours. That same month, 1,300 ambulance patients waited more than an hour outside. I would like to share what that means in reality for some of my constituents.

My constituent Connie�s mother was sat in the back of an ambulance for hours outside the Royal, waiting for space to go in. Once she was finally admitted, she was left in a chair in a corridor for even longer. Not only is that a distressing situation for the patient, but while she was unable to be admitted, that ambulance was forced to stay outside and not be redeployed to help others. I heard from another constituent, Elaine, who had to call an ambulance for her 80-year-old mother-in-law due to a serious hypoglycaemic event, and although the ambulance crew were prompt in their arrival, she spent seven hours in the back of an ambulance as the A&E was not in a position to take her. She then spent 48 hours in A&E and a further three weeks in hospital before she was discharged, having received excellent care, but it is those seven hours that still stay with her now.

At the Alexandra hospital in my constituency, there are no in-patient children�s beds, so very sick children have to be taken to Worcestershire by ambulance if they need to be admitted. The Minister knows all too well that I have raised this issue with her before. If these services were provided more locally, over more than one site, ambulances would be freed up to deal with truly urgent cases across Worcestershire. Our ambulance and hospital staff work tirelessly to help us stay safe and well, but they are being let down by a system that has been neglected for too long.

I will not make a party political point, but�let�s be honest�we pay for the service we get. As the son of someone who worked in the NHS for 40 years, I would say that for too long we have not been investing in our health and social care systems in this country. We must take action now to ensure that our hospitals are given the resources they need so that handovers from ambulances can take place quickly and safely, and patients can truly receive the care that they deserve.

Maternity Services

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing today’s debate. My constituents are watching at home and she eloquently set out the challenges that face our maternity services and the health of women across the UK, so I thank her for doing that so well.

When people in Redditch elect their Members of Parliament, they do so with a clear mandate on maternity services and the future of the Alexandra hospital. It would be remiss of me not to thank the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) who did a tour of service at our hospital in the earlier parts of his career—we thank him for that.

Our maternity services are famed for delivering one Harry Styles many years ago—[Interruption.] Yes, just the one Harry Styles. More seriously, in 2015 our maternity services were closed and relocated to Worcestershire Royal. That temporary relocation was made permanent in 2017. That is the only site delivering such services across our entire county. That means many of my residents are forced to travel to Worcester or Birmingham to get the services they need.

Although the hon. Member for Chichester was brave enough to share some of the stories that she has heard from her constituents, I am quite frankly not strong enough to retell some of the stories I have heard—of stillbirths and, frighteningly, of parents giving birth to their children on the roadside—in the way that they deserve. Since 2015, the initial promises to return those services to my constituency have been forgotten. Despite signatories totalling over 50,000 from the local community, no parameters for the return of such services have been discussed by the ICB.

I want safe services for my constituents, but although I am concerned by the current configuration of services, I am deeply concerned about the future of services in my constituency. Worcestershire Royal has significant constraints on growth. Worcestershire is set to deliver tens of thousands of new homes and huge population growth in the next 10 years, with pressures on services set to rise substantially. As this Government seek to rebuild and reconfigure our NHS, it is time for those services to meet the needs of the present and, most importantly, deliver the services of the future. I urge the Government to review the decisions taken on the centralisation of services that may have made sense in the past, but will not in the future.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I am proud to represent Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire. My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), could not be here, but, on the subject of centralisation, our nearest maternity hospital is in Inverness, which is four hours each way from parts of Sutherland, Argyll, and the Isle of Eigg—around Muck, which I am sure the hon. Member is, or should be, familiar with. I wonder whether the hon. Member could support our case that centralisation is becoming a real problem for expectant mothers, who suffer enormous complications because of distance, given that smaller regional hospitals are no longer providing maternity care?

[Chris Bloore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I am sorry to hear about the level of problems that mothers face his constituency. The hon. Member for Chichester started the debate saying that this is about services for women at their most vulnerable, when they are giving birth. It is clear from the experiences of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine that services are not meeting the needs of those women when they need them the most. That is the challenge that we should now take up.

I conclude by saying that, in the past, the reconfiguration of services has been based on a financial envelope and the challenges of staff shortages, and that has dictated many decisions, but now is the time, with the Darzi report and the eloquent speeches we have heard today, to build that service for the future. We should all strive to meet that challenge, even if that means making difficult financial decisions to invest in the long term, so that we can give women and families the support that they deserve.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

There are three speakers, and we have five minutes to go.